Conspiracy Theories

[Essex Lad]

Robches wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > You could and probably would argue that the mafia wanted
> Castro
> > gone because he threw them out of all the mob-run casinos in
> > Havana and they lost an immense amount of revenue. Similarly,
> > anti-Castro Cubans would want him gone in the same way
> > anti-Gadaffi Libyans, anti-Mubarak Egyptians, anti-Assad
> > Syrians want(ed) them gone.
>
> Yes, there was a shared interest between the CIA, Mob and
> anti-Castro Cubans. The problem was that after the Cuban
> Missile Crisis, JFK had given his word that the USA would not
> overthrow the Castro regime. For them, there was no way to get
> rid of Castro without also getting rid of JFK.
>
> >
> > I don't accept the idea that the CIA plotted to kill the
> > president because he wanted to break up the organisation. Was
> > it the whole of the CIA? Or just a few renegades?
>
> As far as I can see from the evidence developed by the HSCA,
> David Atlee Phillips of the Western Hemisphere Division was
> involved, how far up it went who can say?

But the HSCA's belief in a conspiracy was based on the Dictabelt. It specifically said that there was no mafia-CIA-anti-Castro Cuban conspiracy. In addition, you can't say that the HSCA said that there was a conspiracy and then when that is debunked say that the evidence was withheld by Blakey because of personal animus towards another lawyer.

>
>
> > So you are saying Dulles was sacked by President Kennedy and
> > then appointed to the Warren Commission so that he could
> > continue the cover-up?
>
> I am saying that the Warren Commission was not a true attempt
> to find out who had killed JFK, it was designed to show that
> Oswald did it alone. Can you think of a good reason to appoint
> a man JFK sacked, and who hated him, to the commission meant to
> investigate his death?

Yes, to show the commission was free of bias. There were five Republicans on the Warren Commission investigating the death of a Democrat president.

>
> > But no one has talked. And you would need dozens to have
> plots
> > in Dallas, Miami and Chicago. Look how many were involved in
> > Watergate, multiply that by three and that's a substantial
> > number already.
>
> Watergate is a good case. Howard Hunt was involved, and went to
> prison, but he did not talk. Nor did any of the Cubans arrested
> in the Watergate building. How many CIA operatives have ever
> talked about their roles in Italy, Iran, Guatemala, Chile,
> South Vietnam, Indonesia, or any of the other countries where
> they organised coups and/or assassinations?

There is a heck of a difference between CIA operations in foreign lands and plotting to kill the president.

>
>
> > No, I'm not surprised that you disagree with me on RFK and
> MLK.
> > But having read and written extensively on all three cases
> > (JFK, RFK and MLK), I'm in agreement with Dan Moldea, Gerald
> > Posner, Mel Ayton and Vincent Bugliosi that all three were
> > killed by loners.
>
> If you read the likes of Posner, Moldea and Vince I am not
> surprised. If you read Bill Pepper on MLK you may change your
> mind, not that I am saying you have to. I would strongly
> recommend Fonzi's book The Last Investigation, which has just
> been reprinted and updated.
>
> As to RFK, whilst Sirhan Sirhan was there, in front of RFK, and
> never closer than a few feet, firing a .22 pistol, we know that
> all the four .22 bullets which hit RFK were fired from behind
> him, from the right travelling left, and at a distance of about
> an inch. We also know that the security guard Thane Eugene
> Cesar was armed with a .22 pistol and was standing in that
> exact spot, yet his gun was never examined by the LAPD. Any
> thoughts?

Yes, if Thane Cesar (hired by the Kennedy family) had been the killer he would have had to be have been a solitary opportunist because he did not know he was due to work that day, being called in at the last minute

To say that Sirhan was never closer than a few feet is not correct. When investigating the dynamics of the shooting it has been concluded that Kennedy had been turning to his left when 5'4" Sirhan fired the fatal shot. Furthermore, the reliable witnesses to the shooting all said the distance from Kennedy to Sirhan?s gun was between one and a half to three feet. Therefore, it was not farfetched to say that the muzzle of Sirhan?s gun had or nearly touched Kennedy?s head in the chaos that ensued. One of the most reliable witnesses, Lisa Urso, who could see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy?s hand move to his head behind his right ear. As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first pop was three feet it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy?s movements as ??[jerking] a little bit, like backwards and then forwards?. The backwards and forwards jerking, ?...came as Kennedy had recoiled after the first shot; he was then accidentally bumped forward, toward the steam table and into Sirhan?s gun where he was hit at point blank range.? Boris Yaro, a photographer for The Los Angeles Times, said, ?Kennedy backed up against the kitchen freezers as the gunman fired at him point blank range.? This claim is also supported by key witness Frank Burns, who was identified as one of the five in the group (the others were Karl Uecker, Juan Romero, Jesus Perez, Martin Patrusky) who were closest to the senator. Burns said that the gun was never less than twelve inches or eighteen inches from Kennedy, he did describe the shooting in such a way to make it entirely plausible that Sirhan?s gun moved to an area inches away from Kennedy. Burns had suffered an abrasion on his face that he thought was caused by a bullet passing near his cheek. It was likely a powder burn from Sirhan?s pistol. Burns said: ?I had just caught up with him [in the pantry], and he was a step or so past him. And I?d turned around facing the same way as he turned toward the busboys, I was just off his right shoulder, a matter of inches behind him?The noise was like a string of firecrackers going off, it wasn?t in an even cadence. In the process, a bullet must have passed very close to my left cheek because I can remember the heat and a sort of burn. I remember an arm coming towards us, through the people, with a gun in it. I was putting together the burn across my cheek, the noise and the gun and I was thinking, ?My God, it?s an assassination attempt.? I turned my head and saw the gun and quickly looked back to the senator and realised he?d been shot because he?d thrown his hands up toward his head as if he was about to grab it at the line of his ears. He hadn?t quite done it. His arms were near his head and he was twisting to his left and falling back. And then I looked back at the gunman, and at that moment he was almost directly in front of me. He was still holding the gun and coming closer to the senator, pursuing the body so that the arc of the gun was coming down to the floor as the body was going down.?
In addition, Sirhan was asked why he didn't shoot Kennedy between the eyes and said, "Because the son of a bitch turned his head" before later claiming that he could remember nothing of the shooting.


>
> > On a slightly different tack, what do you think of the death
> of
> > Diana, Princess of Wales?
>
> I think she should have worn a seatbelt.
>
Me too

[Flat_Eric]

Robches wrote:

[quote]I imagine Shermer accepts that Watergate, Iran Contra et al were conspiracies, ie he accepts that conspiracies can and do exist.[/quote]

No idea what he accepts but in any case, just because some conspiracies can and do exist, that doesn't mean that everything else is a conspiracy! This is where a lot of conspiracy theorists get completely carried away.

As was pointed out higher up, Watergate and Iran Contra were conspiracies that involved only a very small number of people and look how quickly they came to light. Look how many people something like 9/11 (thousands) would have to have involved.


[quote]Given that, the question is whether a given event such as the assassination of JFK was a conspiracy or not, and the answer depends on the evidence. I am satisfied based on the evidence I have seen that there was such a conspiracy.[/quote]

That's just it though isn't it - you haven't actually seen any "evidence". Like most conspiracies it's all just conjecture, supposition, suggestion, theorising, unverifiable claims by people with their own agenda (books to sell, disgruntled ex-employees etc.) and (quite often) just plain bullshit. Most conspiracy theorists are unable to tell the difference between these things and actual evidence.

- Eric

[JamesW]

What Robches said:

"I am satisfied based on the evidence I have seen that there was such a conspiracy."

What Robches meant:

"I am satisfied based on the evidence I haven't seen that there was such a conspiracy."

[Robches]

Essex Lad wrote:


>
> But the HSCA's belief in a conspiracy was based on the
> Dictabelt. It specifically said that there was no
> mafia-CIA-anti-Castro Cuban conspiracy. In addition, you can't
> say that the HSCA said that there was a conspiracy and then
> when that is debunked say that the evidence was withheld by
> Blakey because of personal animus towards another lawyer.

I don't accept that the acoustic evidence has been debunked. It has been challenged, certainly. But the fact is that the acoustic evidence made Blakey finally accept that there had been a conspiracy, his researchers had unearthed lots of new evidence, but he was unwilling to run with it, much to their disgust.



>
> Yes, to show the commission was free of bias. There were five
> Republicans on the Warren Commission investigating the death of
> a Democrat president.

You jest surely. Why would you appoint a man who hated JFK, and had been sacked by him in disgrace after the Bay of Pigs, to investigate his death, if you really wanted an unbiased investigation? Are you that trusting?

?
>
> There is a heck of a difference between CIA operations in
> foreign lands and plotting to kill the president.

To these people? Really? This was their stock in trade, it was what they did. They had their own assassins on tap at ZR/RIFLE in Mexico. If they truly thought the president was a traitor (and they did), they would have seen it as their duty to remove him.

As to the RFK killing, as far as I am aware no-one has put Sirhan Sirhan within the inch of RFK which was where the gun was which shot him four times. If you believe that Sirhan acted alone, you must believe that Sandy Serrano was lying about the girl in the polka dot dress, which was why the LAPD browbeat and bullied her on tape. YOu must believe that the LAPD really lacked storage space, which was why they destroyed the door frame with bullet holes in it. You must believe that Phil van Praag has got it wrong about the tape with 13 shots on it (I expect you do). YOu must believe that there was nothing on the photos Scott Enyart took that night, which the LAPD confiscated, kept for 25 years, and which, after they were forced by a court to return them, were "stolen" en route. But you are quite free to believe all this if you wish, it's a free-ish country.

[Robches]

JamesW wrote:

> Robches wrote:
>
> > As I said, I am not photgraphic expert
>
>
> And as I've said, you don't need to be a photographic expert.
> You only need normal eyesight.
>
> How much expertise do you think you need to tell if two photos
> have the same hill in them or not?
>

If that's the level of your criticism of Jack White's work you can't have looked at much of it. If you had any expertise in the matter I would be interested in your views, otherwise, not.

[Robches]

Flat_Eric wrote:


>
> That's just it though isn't it - you haven't actually seen any
> "evidence". Like most conspiracies it's all just conjecture,
> supposition, suggestion, theorising, unverifiable claims by
> people with their own agenda (books to sell, disgruntled
> ex-employees etc.) and (quite often) just plain bullshit. Most
> conspiracy theorists are unable to tell the difference between
> these things and actual evidence.


You seem quite unaware of any of the evidence developed by the HSCA and the ARRB, and as such you are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance. That's your right of course, but why not read around the subject before making such pronouncements?

[JamesW]

Robches wrote:

> If that's the level of your criticism of Jack White's work you
> can't have looked at much of it. If you had any expertise in
> the matter I would be interested in your views, otherwise, not.


Jack White didn't actually do any work to speak of. He merely alleged anomalies in the moon photos - most of these alleged anomalies being simple mistakes on his part and easily refuted.

When Jack White was still alive he was challenged many times by many people over his many mistakes, misunderstandings and misinterpretations, but always chose not to answer or defend his claims.

As for your can't have looked at much of it claim, all the anomalies alleged by Jack White are well known and have been refuted several times. I am familiar with each and every picture in question.

The example you quoted above is classic Jack White - alleging that the lunar rover was in Quad 4 when it was actually in Quad 1. When the error was pointed out to him he failed to comment.

[s rougier]

Why does Robches continue to argue about moon photos when the single example of anomalies he's quoted has been fully explained away?

[JamesW]

s rougier wrote:

> Why does Robches continue to argue about moon photos when the
> single example of anomalies he's quoted has been fully
> explained away?


Because he's a conspiracy theorist - and to a conspiracy theorist a lack of evidence doesn't matter very much - it's all about the theory.

The Jack White site he keeps on about has only ever interested hardened conspiracy theorists - nobody else has ever taken it seriously.

[Essex Lad]

Robches wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
>
> >
> > But the HSCA's belief in a conspiracy was based on the
> > Dictabelt. It specifically said that there was no
> > mafia-CIA-anti-Castro Cuban conspiracy. In addition, you
> can't
> > say that the HSCA said that there was a conspiracy and then
> > when that is debunked say that the evidence was withheld by
> > Blakey because of personal animus towards another lawyer.
>
> I don't accept that the acoustic evidence has been debunked. It
> has been challenged, certainly. But the fact is that the
> acoustic evidence made Blakey finally accept that there had
> been a conspiracy, his researchers had unearthed lots of new
> evidence, but he was unwilling to run with it, much to their
> disgust.
>
But the HSCA stated that without the Dictabelt, there was NO conspiracy.

>
>
> >
> > Yes, to show the commission was free of bias. There were five
> > Republicans on the Warren Commission investigating the death
> of
> > a Democrat president.
>
> You jest surely. Why would you appoint a man who hated JFK, and
> had been sacked by him in disgrace after the Bay of Pigs, to
> investigate his death, if you really wanted an unbiased
> investigation? Are you that trusting?
>
> ?

But if you appointed all Democrats you would claim that how could people who loved JFK come to an unbiased opinion?

> >
> > There is a heck of a difference between CIA operations in
> > foreign lands and plotting to kill the president.
>
> To these people? Really? This was their stock in trade, it was
> what they did. They had their own assassins on tap at ZR/RIFLE
> in Mexico. If they truly thought the president was a traitor
> (and they did), they would have seen it as their duty to remove
> him.
>
You haven't said who "they" are? There is no evidence that Oswald was ever involved in any CIA operations. Indeed, even his wife says he was utterly unreliable and couldn't be trusted to do anything/keep anything secret. Or do you believe that she is part of the conspiracy as well?




> As to the RFK killing, as far as I am aware no-one has put
> Sirhan Sirhan within the inch of RFK which was where the gun
> was which shot him four times. If you believe that Sirhan acted
> alone, you must believe that Sandy Serrano was lying about the
> girl in the polka dot dress,

I do believe that she was lying or at best mistaken.

which was why the LAPD browbeat
> and bullied her on tape. YOu must believe that the LAPD really
> lacked storage space, which was why they destroyed the door
> frame with bullet holes in it.

Those who believe that Jack the Ripper was a conspiracy point to the destruction of most of Scotland Yard notes as part of the cover-up. The notes regarding the foundation of the MCC have also been destroyed. The BBC has destroyed most of its output from the 50s and 60s because it did not have the space to store them including some very important historical programmes. If the LAPD believed that the case was closed, then they would have seen no reason to keep all the evidence. As I said in my first post, most conspiracies are actually cock-ups.



You must believe that Phil van
> Praag has got it wrong about the tape with 13 shots on it (I
> expect you do).

I do - later analysis shows that only seven bullets can be accounted for.

YOu must believe that there was nothing on the
> photos Scott Enyart took that night, which the LAPD
> confiscated, kept for 25 years, and which, after they were
> forced by a court to return them, were "stolen" en route. But
> you are quite free to believe all this if you wish, it's a
> free-ish country.
>
>